State Gaming Commissions Rallying Behind Massachusetts Judge’s Kalshi Decision

• A number of states have filed a judge’s preliminary injunction against Kalshi in Massachusetts as supplemental authority in support of their own lawsuits
• Ohio, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee have all filed the Massachusetts decision in their own legal battles against Kalshi
• Superior Court Judge Christopher K. Barry-Smith delayed his decision to let a preliminary injunction go into effect in Massachusetts

---

Several states are quickly moving to incorporate Massachusetts Justice of the Superior Court Christopher K. Barry-Smith’s approval of the commonwealth’s motion for a preliminary injunction against Kalshi into their own legal battles against the prediction market company.

Judge Barry-Smith’s approval of the commonwealth’s preliminary injunction request has been incorporated into at least five state legal battles against Kalshi and their sports event contracts as supplemental authority for their own preliminary injunction requests.

If upheld, the preliminary injunction will prohibit Kalshi from offering its sports event contracts in Massachusetts through the course of the state’s lawsuit.

States Incorporating Judge’s Decision

So far, counsel for Ohio, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Tennessee have filed the Massachusetts preliminary injunction approval as “supplemental authority” in their own legal struggles against the prediction market company.

Each of those states have officially included the preliminary injunction decision into their own legal strategies to impose preliminary injunctions upon Kalshi as well.

New: Ohio Casino Control Commission files the Massachusetts court ruling against Kalshi as "supplemental authority" in further support of Ohio's opposition to Kalshi's motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Barry-Smith's decision is now of record in 7 different PM lawsuits. pic.twitter.com/uz2VQ6Qnfb

— Daniel Wallach (@WALLACHLEGAL) January 23, 2026

In his approval of the preliminary injunction, Judge Barry-Smith wrote that he fundamentally disagreed with Kalshi’s assertion that the commonwealth’s attempted regulation of its sports event contracts was preempted by federal law.

Kalshi argues, Barry-Smith reported, that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) exclusive jurisdiction over transactions involving swaps must mean that Congress intends to preempt state sports gaming laws that would otherwise require licensure of designated contract markets.

“But its view of the relevant field of preemption is overly broad, particularly in light of the presumption against preemption. Although I agree that the exclusive jurisdiction provision evidences an intent to preempt some state law, I disagree that it extends as far as state gaming laws. While it would make sense for Congress to displace a state’s targeted attempt to regulate a derivative market, for example, or to clarify the roles of separate federal agencies, as address in Merrill Lynch, that logic does not suggest Congress intended to displace traditional state police powers, such as gambling regulation,” he wrote.

Massachusetts Preliminary Injunction Delayed

Judge Barry-Smith delayed the implementation of the preliminary injunction after a hearing on Friday, Jan. 23. The Massachusetts Attorney General and Kalshi each presented their sides for the preliminary injunction last week, but Judge Barry-Smith decided additional information was necessary before making his decision.

He set another hearing to address Kalshi’s emergency motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction. Massachusetts opposition for the motion is set for this Friday, while Kalshi’s reply is due on Wednesday, Feb. 4. The hearing will take place after the replies are submitted to the court.

If the preliminary injunction goes into effect, Kalshi will have seven days to geofence Massachusetts and prohibit the trading of its sports event contracts in the commonwealth. Based on this hearing schedule, it will likely allow the prediction market company to offer its sports event contracts through the Super Bowl, which is set for Sunday, Feb. 8.

Massachusetts First to File Lawsuit

Massachusetts became the first state to levy a lawsuit against Kalshi – and the prediction markets – over its sports event contracts.

The lawsuit alleges Kalshi’s sports event contracts bypass key consumer protections that are required of licensed sports betting operators. Kalshi has not undergone the necessary comprehensive processes required by the MGC to ensure its operations are in alignment with state regulations. Kalshi also allows users between the ages of 18 and 21 to trade contracts on its platforms, when the legal age for sports betting in the state is 21.

According to the state’s lawsuit, Kalshi’s platform employs behavioral design mechanisms drawn from gambling psychology, with features that encourage “impulsive engagement, exploit award anticipation, and diminish users’ perception of financial risk.”